What about bombing versus Wildfires?

  • Thread starter Z0dCHiY8
  • Start date
In summary: What is your calculation of the cost of making so many bombs or shells?Are there any concerns about littering the forests with so much shrapnel from spent casings? Or would you send clean up crews to pick up the pieces?"Swords into plowshares?" Admirable. Into bricks to build mushroom barns? Possible, but the contortions proposed to accomplish the task are far more trouble than any possible agricultural advantage/gain.
  • #1
Z0dCHiY8
43
2
One of possible solutions is, to use special bombs. Such device consists of three main components.

1. retardant.
2. explosive.
3. shrapnel-less shell.

Explosion sprays retardant + makes vacuum bubble over hot spot, thereby fire gets choking. The most valuable plus here will be the minimal time to respond on new hot spots: bombs can be delivered to with artillery or airplanes. Actually, bombing makes possible to exploit terrains against wildfires. Such exploitation can be calculated and executed literally in online mode. Yet another plus, great precision of attacks makes possible to manage counter-fire ops across large areas with extremely scarce resources. Following plus is, there doesn’t need to deploy multiple crews and machinery on the ground. Thanks to this strategy, even Weather will provide much less obstacles to fight Wildfires.

P.S. actually, bombing already was used..


however, it seems not enough efficient to use ordinary bombs.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
I guess you could do that. Tell us what advantages/disadvantages you see for that compared to a conventional air drop.
1567257490515.png
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #3
anorlunda said:
I guess you could do that. Tell us what advantages/disadvantages you see for that compared to a conventional air drop.
1. less or no risks for pilots, because bombs get dropped from higher altitudes.
2. more precise work == bombs deliver retardants to key spots.
3. bombs can be activated by timers o/& remote control, so hot spots can be attacked much more massively at needful time & at needful altitude.
4. hot spots can be attacked not only from aircrafts, but w/ artillery too.
5. it's more cheap, because takes minimal lag to react.
6. good boost for economics == this approach provides new technologies & savings for lives + properties(infrastructure) as well.
---------------
In fact, many parts of a Wildfire are just dead ends, thus kill its key spots as soon as possible & you solve the overall problem.
 
  • #4
How about the disadvantages?
 
  • #6
Z0dCHiY8 said:
1. less or no risks for pilots, because bombs get dropped from higher altitudes.
2. more precise work == bombs deliver retardants to key spots.

I don't think you can have it both ways.
 
  • #7
Ariel tankers can drop up to 75000 liters of fire retardant on one flight.

What is your calculation of how many bombs to deliver 75000 l?

What is your calculation of how many artillery shells to deliver 75000 l?

What is your calculation of the cost of making so many bombs or shells?

Are there any concerns about littering the forests with so much shrapnel from spent casings? Or would you send clean up crews to pick up the pieces?
 
  • #8
anorlunda said:
how many bombs to deliver 75000 l?
"Swords into plowshares?" Admirable. Into bricks to build mushroom barns? Possible, but the contortions proposed to accomplish the task are far more trouble than any possible agricultural advantage/gain.
 
  • #9
anorlunda said:
Are there any concerns about littering the forests with so much shrapnel from spent casings? Or would you send clean up crews to pick up the pieces?

Just make them flammable! Problem solved! :eek:
 
  • Haha
Likes phinds
  • #10
Vanadium 50 said:
I don't think you can have it both ways. [accuracy and drop altitude]

Vanadium 50 said:
Just make them flammable! Problem solved! :eek:
"Cellulose encased laser guided bomb."
 
  • Haha
Likes Klystron
  • #11
Anyone who suggests dropping explosive retardant bombs on a forest fire has never seen a real forest fire. The number of fires that could be controlled that way is a very small percentage of the whole. Maybe if the fire was localised, on the ground, and with a shallow peat free mineral soil, there might be a chance.

Once a fire reaches the canopy with 80 km/h winds it will be spotting many km ahead of the fire front. The thermal plume will reach 30,000 ft, and flying is unsafe. Even with FLIR, knowledge of the fire front is incomplete. Shelling from a safe distance would then have a snowflake's chance in hell.

We will have catastrophic fires so long as forests are clear felled and replanted. A regrowing forest requires much more water than a stable forest. Regrowth rapidly dries the soil, so a vegetation fire then burns the organic in the soil, which destroys the ability of that soil to hold water. So the cycle of desertification continues.

What is it about people who think that using a bigger bomb is the right answer?
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre, Klystron and russ_watters
  • #12
Vanadium 50 said:
I don't think you can have it both ways.
precise bombing is well solved problem.
anorlunda said:
Ariel tankers can drop up to 75000 liters of fire retardant on one flight.
most share of Wildfire is bottom fires (dry grass, shrubs..) & Tree's canopies disperse the most volume of retardant for nothing.
anorlunda said:
What is your calculation of how many bombs to deliver 75000 l?
here is the key factors not a volume of retardant, but speed to respond & precision.
Baluncore said:
Once a fire reaches the canopy with 80 km/h winds it will be spotting many km ahead of the fire front. The thermal plume will reach 30,000 ft, and flying is unsafe. Even with FLIR, knowledge of the fire front is incomplete. Shelling from a safe distance would then have a snowflake's chance in hell.
patrol of firefighting drones w/ bombs on-board can kill Wildfire from the its very start.
Baluncore said:
Maybe if the fire was localised, on the ground, and with a shallow peat free mineral soil, there might be a chance.
Peat fires are whole another story. It's always ticking Disaster.
 
  • #13
anorlunda said:
Are there any concerns about littering the forests with so much shrapnel from spent casings? Or would you send clean up crews to pick up the pieces?
clean up crews.
 
  • #14
Baluncore said:
Anyone who suggests dropping explosive retardant bombs on a forest fire has never seen a real forest fire.
Agreed. Or put out a real fire (house fire, car fire, small vegitation fire, etc.).

@Z0dCHiY8 -- please attend your local fire academy and graduate. Combine that new knowledge with your admirable passion to figure out new ways to fight wildland fires. We do not support video game approaches to firefighting here -- too many of us have experience on the front lines having our faces singed.

After you have graduated from the academy, please feel free to start new threads to discuss your ideas. This thread is closed...

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/images/wildland apps.jpg
1567371750010.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes phinds
  • #15
berkeman said:
too many of us have experience on the front lines having our faces singed.
Full disclosure -- my experiences have been fighting vehicle fires and small home fires, not wildland fires. Code-4 on all of them. But I have many many close friends who fight wildland fires each year, and save many properties and lives.

Please don't try this at home without a lot of training.
 
  • Like
  • Skeptical
Likes Aubergine Agonistes, BillTre, Klystron and 1 other person

Related to What about bombing versus Wildfires?

What is the difference between bombing and wildfires?

Bombing refers to the use of explosives to cause destruction or damage, while wildfires refer to uncontrolled fires that spread through vegetation and can cause damage to property and natural resources.

Why would someone choose to bomb instead of fighting wildfires?

Bombing may be used as a last resort when other methods of controlling wildfires have failed or when there is a need to create a fire break to prevent the spread of the fire.

Can bombing be effective in stopping wildfires?

Bombing can be effective in creating fire breaks and controlling the spread of wildfires, but it is not a guaranteed solution and can have negative consequences such as air pollution and destruction of vegetation.

What are the potential risks of bombing in wildfire situations?

The use of explosives in wildfire situations can cause air pollution, damage to the environment, and potential harm to nearby communities. It can also be costly and may not always be successful in stopping the fire.

Are there any alternatives to bombing in wildfire situations?

Yes, there are several alternative methods for controlling wildfires such as using fire retardants, creating fire breaks, and implementing controlled burns. These methods may be less destructive and have fewer negative consequences compared to bombing.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
843
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
75
Views
4K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
0
Views
830
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
7
Replies
235
Views
20K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
Back
Top